Dave Rubin/Tim Pool - “Oops! I Got Paid $400,000 a Month by Russia to Do Propaganda! I’m a Victim!”

OA1070 Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin today’s show with updates on two small victories for the power of art against the Donald Trump legal-industrial complex before turning to our main story: the biggest leak of internal communications in Supreme Court history.  We review what we can learn about how Chief Justice John Roberts has been managing his (and the Court’s) public image from the extremely unauthorized release to the New York Times of memos that we were never supposed to read.  Also, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has just eliminated three more counts from the Georgia RICO indictment against Donald Trump and the co-conspirators charged with their attempt to submit a false slate of Presidential electors to a federal court based on 134-year-old Supreme Court precedent. What’s going on here, and how safe is this indictment now? Finally in this week’s Footnote Fetish, Matt explains why some scruffy-looking nerf-herder is trying to convince a British court that his legal rights were violated by Lucasfilm’s digital resurrection of the deadliest villain in Star Wars history.  How Chief Justice Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (9/15/24) Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee’s order dismissing defendants’ motion to dismiss RICO indictments against Donald Trump et al under the Supremacy Clause (9/12/2024) UK High Court’s judgment in Tyburn FIlm Productions Ltd v. Broughton et al If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1069   Matt is doing a bit of blending of work and pleasure today, by sharing with everyone his footnote fetish. Let's all make this a safe place for Matt to share his more controversial proclivities. Joining us is the author of the book in the episode title, Peter Charles Hoffer. Professor Hoffer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Unlike the justices, Professor Hoffer is an actual historian. Listen and find out not only the fascinating footnote history, but also yet more reasons why originalism and "history and tradition" are not good ways for untrained amateur historians like Samuel Alito to do jurisprudence. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1068 We begin with a quick review of some of the stranger legal issues raised in this week’s Presidential debate, including such mysteries as whether it is legal to murder babies upon delivery and the factual guilt of the Central Park Five 22 years after they were exonerated by DNA evidence and a third-party confession. In our main story, we review the chaos that the Supreme Court’s legalization of Presidential crime is already causing in Donald Trump’s hush-money case and discuss the relative merits of pushing his sentencing back until after the November election. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to explain an overlooked legal story in this week’s news involving a remarkably rare grant of a common defense motion. Filings from People v. Trump (NYCourts website) SDNY Judge Hellerstein’s order denying Trump’s notice of removal (9/3/24) Justice Merchan’s order continuing Trump’s sentencing hearing to November 26, 2024 (9/6/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1067 After some of the strangest post-conviction twists in US legal history, the Supreme Court of Maryland has just reinstated Serial killer Adnan Syed’s conviction for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee 25 years ago. We begin by revisiting Matt’s first-ever legal podcasting deep dive with Thomas on Serious Inquiries Only (SIO354) shortly after Syed’s conviction was initially reinstated by the Maryland Appellate Court last April. How accurate were his predictions for what Maryland’s highest court would do with this, as well as for the fallout which might follow if a new team of prosecutors were to be required to go before a new judge to actually present the evidence upon which they claimed to have brought the motion which freed Syed?  Matt then briefly breaks down the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lengthy decision and explains why this is one of the strongest statements for victims rights ever made by any US state court. What are the odds of the prosecution now bringing a legitimate motion for a new trial? Why doesn’t Adnan Syed have to return to prison now that officially once more stands convicted of first-degree murder? And would we even be here at all if a man who has spent the last 25 years lying about a murder that he committed with his bare hands at the age of 17 hadn’t been introduced to a massive international audience by the only podcast your mother has ever listened to?  Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Adnan Syed v. Young Lee as Victim’s Representative (9/3/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1066 Privyet, fellow citizens! We begin with a quick look at recent events following  Jack Smith’s new superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6th case in DC. Why are Trump’s lawyers saying that Clarence Thomas “directed” them to file a motion to dismiss? And does DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan even care that this defendant who happens to be charged with four counts of trying to overturn an election is running for President at all?  Then in our main story: In an indictment filed this week, the Department of Justice has charged two Russian state media operatives with funding an officially unnamed production company which is allegedly (but also definitely) Tenet Media, the home of mediocre anti-woke crusaders like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern (among others). Thomas takes us through some of the most entertaining facts alleged in the indictment, including an extremely real investor who is definitely in Paris and not Moscow, the Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda video which was a little too much even for Tenet’s producers, and why anyone (including Tim Pool) could have ever believed that Tim Pool could have possibly been worth $100,000 an episode. Matt then breaks down some of the history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and how this indictment sets a new standard for its enforcement in the 21st century--and what (and who) might be next. DOJ indictment of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (9/4/24) FARA on Facebook, Joshua Fattel, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2019)   If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1065 (This episode first appeared on Gavel Gavel Aug. 18th) Three years ago, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the set of Alec Baldwin's film, Rust. Alec Baldwin (in addition to armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed) was subsequently criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter. Recently, Baldwin's counsel brought a motion for dismissal and sanctions, and after a shocking day in court, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice. Matt and Thomas walk through the events of that hearing and try to figure out what in the world the prosecutors were thinking. State of New Mexico v. Alexander Rae Baldwin III (Alec Baldwin) Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 (pdf) Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 NMRA (pdf)

OA1064 One angry Matt brings us two stories from this week’s news: After taking some time to think about the Supreme Court’s decision that former US presidents can’t be prosecuted for anything involving--or in any way touching on--”official acts,” special counsel Jack Smith has returned to a grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment in his DC prosecution of Donald Trump. How has he retooled the charges relating to the January 6th conspiracy? How much weaker will this case be without the many federal government witnesses who would otherwise have been called, and what happens next? Here’s something everyone should know: AGs in 16 red states are now taking a bold and principled stand against--and this is 100% true--traditional marriage. In a suit filed in a Texas federal court last week, these staunch defenders of our most cherished family values argued that there are at least 550,000 US citizens who should be exiled from not only from their states but from the United States for ten years because they married the wrong person--and that the very existence of these families is causing their states “irreparable harm.” Matt controls his unbounded rage just enough to break down one of the weakest and most inhumane challenges to immigration policy in modern history before calling out 16 people who should never hold public office anywhere again. Superseding indictment in U.S. v. Trump (filed 8/27/24) Implementation of Keeping Families Together (Federal Register, 8/23/24) Complaint brought by 16 Republican AGs to stop the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program (8/23/24) Donation page for Elad Gross, the only candidate in the MIssouri AG’s race who has not argued to a federal court in Texas that 9,000 of his own voters should be exiled from the United States for 10 years If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!